Static Main Menu

Relationship between Shrimp Aquaculture and Peoples Movements in India

Article shared by :

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Relationship between Shrimp Aquaculture and Peoples Movements in India!

Intensive shrimp aquaculture makes a good case study of ecological destruction and resultant socio-economic problems parallel to the processes of globalization, liberalization and 100 per cent export-oriented production. The post-1991 liberalization phase has seen many corporate houses investing heavily in shrimp aquaculture and setting up 100 per cent export- oriented units (EOUs).

Aquaculture farms mushroomed around Buckingham canal and Kandaleru creek in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, Bhadrak Balasare belt in Orissa, Nagai Quaide-Millet and Ramnathpuram districts in Tamil Nadu. According to an estimate “of the 1.2 million hectare of breakwater area including ponds, lakes and lagoons spread along the coastline, over 82,500 hectare has been brought under shrimp cultivation”.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

According to another estimate, “The country has exported about 64,000 tonnes of shrimp in 1994-95. This is about 17,000 tonnes higher than the 1992-93 volume and almost double the shrimp production of 1990-91. Shrimp exports account for 35.47 per cent in terms of volume and 70.74 per cent of the value of the marine product exports”.

Accord­ing to a recent estimate of seafood exports from our country in the first six months of 2000, “… shrimp constitutes 78.02 per cent of the total value of seafood exports. In quantity terms, the share of this product group is 40 per cent. The export of shrimp increased, by 35.66 per cent in rupee terms and 30.1 per cent in dollar terms”.

Industrial giants like Hindustan Lever, Tata, Sriram, Thapar Group, Rank Aqua and international aqua-giants like Thai Charoen Pokhaph etc. are engaged in a mad scramble to acquire prime aquaculture farms in the country. But before documenting all this, it seems pertinent to briefly look at the global situation – the adverse effects of shrimp aquaculture on environment in other countries – and the opinions of some leading experts in the area. This will help us understand the Indian situation better.

1. The Global Situation:

By 1990s shrimp aquaculture became a flourishing agricultural export activity in many third world countries. A major environmental objection to the functioning of aquaculture firms relates to the way these transform multi-user public coastal land into single-purpose private property.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

It is found that generally mangroves are destroyed to make room for them and irreversible ecological changes take place in an environmentally sensitive area where the sea joins the land. Barraclough and Finger-Stich have tried to show that shrimp ponds produce tonnes of undigested feed and faecal waste, and discharge ammonia, nitrites and nitrates which are ecologically disastrous. To quote them:

“While traditionally mangroves have been treated as common property resources, their privatization for shrimp farming denies traditional users their customary rights. Local people lose a major source of firewood, construction material, nursery bed for fish and protection from storms and floods as mangroves disappear”.

They further opine:

“… if the experience of China and Taiwan is any guide, shrimp farming can only be sustained for a couple of decades before diseases associated with self-pollution bring production down to a non-viable level”.

Discharge of pond water turns adjacent paddy fields into a saline area which is no longer suitable for paddy cultivation. When demand condi­tions change, or the ponds are infested with disease, or cheaper supply sources are found, and in response, firms relocate their activities, the abandoned land can no longer be used for paddy cultivation for a long time to come.

When Taiwan’s industry was decimated by disease and land subsidence in 1987, the capital moved to other areas. Similarly, Taiwanese investment to Thailand was diverted to Central America when production in Thailand leveled off.

Thus, intensive shrimp aquaculture is a non- sustainable form of shifting cultivation, with companies moving from one country to another within few years as production becomes non-sustainable in each area. The United Nations Research Institute for Social Develop­ment (UNRISD) has called it a ‘rape and run’ industry.

2. The Indian Context:

It is amazing that our policy makers did not deem it necessary to learn from the experiences of other Asian countries under shrimp aquaculture and to pay heed to the opinions of leading experts in this area before encouraging shrimp aquaculture by industrial giants. Shrimp aquaculture received a fillip and expanded enormously during the post-liberalization phase. It is interesting to note that with the introduction of trade liber­alization under NEP, marine products became the most important item exported from India. Shrimp constituted the major part of marine exports.

According to an estimate, “India’s exports of principal agricultural commodities amounted to Rs 6.2 billion during 1990-91, Rs 8.1 billion during 1991-92, Rs 8.9 billion in 1992-93 and Rs 12 billion in 1993-94. Out of this the most important item exported was marine products accounting for Rs 1.7 billion in 1992-93 and Rs 2 billion in 1994. Shrimp accounted for 70 per cent of total marine exports. Most of the shrimp for exports came from shrimp farms along India’s coastline”.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In Andhra Pradesh, the biggest concentration of shrimp farms is in Nellore, Prakasam, Krishna and West Godavari districts. As a consequence of shrimp aquaculture in the village of Kurru in Nellore district, there is no drinking water available to 600 fisher folk due to salinization of drinking water. The companies owning shrimp farms have been forced to spend Rs 5 lakh a month to transport potable water in the village.

According to an estimate, “At least 9000 hectares of paddy lands have been rendered useless in the coastal mandals of Andhra Pradesh as a result of the aborted blue revolution of modern shrimp aquaculture. Rehabilitation packages are needed for the farmers in the delta area to avoid a human tragedy”. The conversion of paddy lands into shrimp farms has also led to massive un­employment. Govindamma of Kurru village says: “We were displaced from the sea we went to agriculture for jobs. Now they are building prawn farms on agricultural land. Where will we earn our living”?

On the eastern coast shrimp farms are concentrated in the regions of Nagai Quide-E-Milleth (NQM), Tuticorin and Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu and Karaikal in Pondicherry. Shrimp aquaculture is posing a serious threat to the ecology of 1000 km long coastline of Tamil Nadu and the livelihood of 75 lakh people from various sectors. The NQM district forms a part of the old Tanjore district which is called the ‘Granary’ of the South India because of high fertility of soil.

“However, due to the environmental impact of shrimp farming, the granary is becoming a graveyard according to local people”. Shrimp aquaculture is leading to serious environmental degradation in Tamil Nadu (TN) with serious implications for both agri­culturists and fish workers. Trees and mangroves have been cut down to make way for fish ponds, and the removal of this tree cover makes the coast more vulnerable to cyclones.

Commenting upon the role of the Indian State in promoting shrimp aquaculture during the post-liberalization phase, Vivekanandan and Kurien perceptively say:

“…India was among the last countries in Asia to mount the modern shrimp aquaculture bandwagon and had the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others. The countries which started shrimp aquaculture earlier went through many environmental and social problems. It is therefore somewhat incredible that our state-sponsored scientific establishments and promotional agencies did not issue any warning to the administrators or farmers about the potential problems they could confront in using the new technology. They were working entirely in the promotional mode, hard selling shrimp aquaculture to all and sundry in the name of contributing to the post-liberalization thirst for quick foreign exchange earnings. If the state is the ultimate custodian of our natural resources it will have to bring to bear a more precautionary approach in economic activities which utilize natural resources… in the context of economic liberalization. The development versus environment issue takes on a special signi­ficance in the case of shrimp aquaculture. It is a classic case of the irreconcilable conflicts between development which brings considerable short run private gain, but inflicts initially invisible environmental costs that result in long-term losses for larger society”.

3. People’s Movements:

As shrimp aquaculture destroyed local ecology and people’s livelihoods, it generated social conflicts. In Andhra Pradesh, in 1994, fish workers of Kurru attacked the aquaculture farms uprooting pumps set up for drawing sea water. The district officials had to intervene who convinced shrimp farmers to contribute Rs 40 lakh to relocate the villagers. Subsequently, the villagers shifted to Iskapalli village.

Various social action groups came together to form the Forum for the Protection of Fisher folk and Marine Resources which initiated movement against shrimp aquaculture in Andhra Pradesh (AP). In Tamil Nadu (TN), the Gram Swaraj Movement (GSM) took up the issue of shrimp farms. The landless peasants of TN gave slogans like “Don’t Bring Saline Water Into Our Lands” and “Don’t Take Away Our Livelihood”.

As a result of the efforts of concerned people against shrimp aquaculture, Campaign Against Shrimp Industries (CASI) came into being on 20th September, 1994. On March 1, 1995 mass rallies were organized at ten different places in TN demanding a total ban on all shrimp industries.

On May 22, 1995 Shri Jaganathan of GSM and Shri Y. David of East Coast Movement (ECM) went on a fast demanding enforce­ment of the Supreme Court’s interim order (we consider the interim order a little later). From June 19, 1995 they were joined by five members of CASI. The fast continued till June 23, 1995.

The CASI organized a Coastal Awareness Yatra (March) along the coastal villages of TN during April 13- 24, 1996. The Yatra co-ordination committee consisted of representatives from fishworkers’ associations and voluntary organizations and social activists. This ‘Yatra’ held meetings in 42 villages along the coast of TN.

Again on April 10, 1997, Shri Jaganathan went on a fast at Rajghat in Delhi against government’s intention to introduce Aquaculture Authority Bill 1997′, which allegedly would permit establishment of aquaculture farms within the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) in clear violation of the Supreme Court (SC) judgment of December 11, 1996.

The then Minister for Agriculture, Shri Chaturanan Mishra visited him and promised not to introduce the Bill in the Lok Sabha during the session. The Aquaculture Authority Act had already been passed by the Rajya Sabha on March 21, 1997. Throughout the coastal states of India-West Bengal, Orissa, Gujarat, AP, TN, Kerala, Goa and Maharashtra – coastal communities celebrated 15th August 1997 differently; under the leadership of the National Action Committee Against Coastal Industrial Aquaculture (NACACIA), coastal communities marched to shrimp farms which had been banned by the SC, but continued to operate in contempt of the apex court’s orders.

They carried the Indian flag and sang the national song, ‘ Vande Mataram’. Thus, for the victims of the aquaculture industry, Independence Day was a day for asserting their sovereignty over their natural resources and their freedom to engage in their livelihoods.

4. The Judicial Intervention:

It is noteworthy that people’s movement has succeeded in eliciting judicial response. The GSM, which has been leading the struggle against shrimp farming in TN, filed a case in Supreme Court seeking a ban on the reckless spread of aquaculture. The Supreme Court acted on the basis of an expert committee report from National Environmental Engineering and Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur.

“The NEERI team internalized the environ­mental costs of destruction of land, water and biodiversity resources and showed that in AP while the annual earnings from prawn exports were Rs 1498 crores, the annual costs due to destruction of natural resources and livelihoods were Rs 6305 crores. In TN, the costs were Rs 423 crore while earnings were Rs 280 crore”. On May 9, 1995 the SC passed an interim order banning the conversion of agricultural lands to prawn farms.

Subsequently, CASI constituted an Expert Committee headed by Justice (Rtd.) Suresh comprising jurists, scientists and experts on civil matters to study all aspects of shrimp industry. The committee visited the affected areas and on the basis of evidence collected prepared a report which was submitted before the SC. In the SC, Justice Kuldeep Singh and Justice B.L. Hansaria gave a judgment on December 11, 1996 ordering “closure, demolition and removal of all aquaculture industry, shrimp culture industry/shrimp culture ponds in the Coastal Regulation Zones of India before March 31, 1997”. Thus, the SC ordered the destruction of thousands of aquaculture and shrimp farms set up by MNCs and Indian companies in an estimated 1,00,000 acres of ecologically fragile land along the 6,000 km long coastline of the country.

This verdict also directed the central government to establish an ‘Aquaculture Authority’ by January 15, 1997 to monitor the farms, implement “polluter pays principle” and to see that compensation to affected people was paid; the compensation was to be recovered from the polluters and deposited under a separate head called the ‘Environment Protection Fund’ to be used for compensating affected people and restoring environment.

The Gol did not establish any such authority by 15th January 1997. Instead, the Gol presented a bill in the Parliament under the name of ‘Aquaculture Authority Bill’. The government also filed a review petition in the SC pleading that aquaculture be considered a farming activity rather than an industry. The review petition filed by the government was rejected by the SC division bench headed by Justice S.P. Bharucha on 4th February, 1997.

However, the court stayed the demolition of all coastal shrimp farms till April 30, 1997. It was only then that on 7th February, 1997 the Ministry of Environment and Forest constituted an ‘Aquaculture Authority’ with retired judge of Madras High Court, Justice G. Ramanujam as its chairman.

On 20th March, 1997 the Rajya Sabha passed the Aquaculture Authority Bill. On April 25, 1997 the SC extended the stay of demolition of shrimp farms till 31st July, 1997. On 15th August, 1997 the coastal communities marched to shrimp farms which continued to operate in contempt of the Supreme Court’s orders.

It is interesting to note that people’s protest, as in the case of DSF policy, has taken an organized form in the case of shrimp aquaculture also. In both the cases, the protesters have shown horizontal and vertical solidarity by coming together under various banners and by mustering the support of other prominent social and environmental movements.

In the case of DSF policy, fishworkers have formed national level forums like National Fish­workers’ Forum (NFF) and NFACAJV. Fish-workers’ strike in November 1994 could also gain the support of major trade unions and popular social and environmental movements of the country. Similarly, in the case of shrimp aquaculture, protesters have formed national level forum like NACACIA.

They have shown horizontal solidarity by forming regional forum like Forum for the Protection of Fisherfolk and Marine Resources (FPFMR) and by coming together on a single platform under the banner of CASI. In both the cases, the protesters have adopted peaceful means of agitation for checking worsening environmental conditions. People pro­testing against DSF policy and the communities protesting against intensive shrimp aquaculture, need to come together on a common platform which, in turn should get mingled with the larger struggle against adverse effects of the processes of globalization and liberalization.

The post-liberalization period has also seen expansion of toxic trade and rise in the level of air and water pollution. The next section makes a modest attempt to highlight environmental consequences of toxic trade and rise in the level of pollution.